Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
colleague from connecticut, rosa delauro, has introduced that bill year after year. you said that the federal government can borrow money, 10-year notes, even 15-year notes, somewhere around 1.5%, maybe toward 2%. if we were to borrow that, put it into an infrastructure bank and then loan money to infrastructure projects that have a cash flow, sanitation facility, water facility, toll bridges and numerous other kinds of infrastructure, which is desperately needed, we could have a financing system that over time would actually make money for the federal government. could borrow at 1.5%, loan at 1.75%, have a margin there, the money would flow back in. you'd get that revolving. the president has actually proposed this in his american jobs act. he's picked this up during his debate, the fiscal cliff negotiations, put it back on the table. we ought to be doing that. in doing so we will create tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands of american jobs. american jobs. and if we couple that with buy american so that the equipment, the steel, the concrete, the other ingredients
in connecticut sunday night. no one can erase evil but we need to accept the reality that we're not doing enough to protect our citizens. i'm very happy that the president's going to do everything he can administratively. we must engage in a thoughtful debate how to change laws and culture that allows violence not continue to grow. every idea should be on the table as we discuss how best to keep our children safe. >> [inaudible] >> no, i've been very clear here. i think we have to have a full discussion. >> [inaudible] >> the president has made an overture to the speaker. as we talked about in our caucus today, we hoped to get something affirmative from the republicans. to this they have walked away and not been affirmative. i admire and appreciate very much the president showing the american people how reasonable he's trying to be. significant tax increases, significant cuts. >> would you personally support the reindexes of social security? -- reindexing of social security? >> this is not going to be a situation where we'll vote on a particular provision in the bill. it's going to be a framewor
of the rules committee. speaker, when i mention the words hurricane sandy, the wn, connecticut, what do they have in common? an enormous gun strategy, the loss of 26 live, and americans suffering from a devastating storm. our hearts go out to those babies who were lost. it speaks to americans in need. that is why i am is so troubled to be on the floor today. the framework that we have a sense to america that when you are in need, we will not, as this congress and this government, be prepared to help you. i think what is disappointing, just about three days ago we thought there was a deal between the white house and the framework that was offered and the leadership of this house is is disappointing that in the course of a couple of days, we have come to a situation when this plan, plan b, raises only $300 billion from high on -- high income households and it is suggested that millionaires will get $108,000 in tax cuts. but will the middle class in? plan b allows the bush tax cuts to continue the itemized deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunity to keep their money. in fact,
york, the people of connecticut in particular, others as well, have sustained a very, very damaging blow both corporately and individually. we need to act on that. historically supplementals are not paid for, are passed so that we can meet the immediate need. mr. crowley will speak to that. but let me say this. the answer to your question is it's part of the math. if we're going to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path, we're going to have to consider all the expenditures we made, whether we paid for them initially or not, we're going to have to put that into the math and it needs to be a part of the agreement. i've said this is a math problem. certainly the dollars we spend will have to be accounted for and will have to be paid for over a longer period of time. but we can amortize that immediate expense that we need to make on behalf of the severely adversely affected damaged areas, we need to make that expenditure now. but we need to pay for that over the longer term. so to that extent, yes, it will be part of the -- for my own standpoint, part of the math that will have
, this gun law by itself, we don't know if it would have prevented the massacre in connecticut. we just know, as sam said, after oregon, after colorado, after -- i think minnesota, the temple in minnesota. >> tucson, gabby giffords. >> after tucson, gabby giffords, after connecticut last week. these are no longer isolated random acts of violence. let's bring in jim vandehei with "politico's" playbook. and jim, it's not a cold december. things are heating up. >> it's not. we're talking about gun control, but if you think about the election, which seems so small, so little talk about what would happen in the next year, we now have two months where we'll be dealing with tax increases, entitlement reform, gun control and i think a real debate about creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the country, all in the first three months of this congress. and all of these are going to test what al was talking about earlier, that there is rhetorically a lot of republicans are saying the right thing. if you watch it, they've sort of put a sock in it when it comes to gay marriage, when
, connecticut, many wonder what do they have in common? gun tragedy, the loss of 26 lives, and americans suffering from a devastating storm, certainly our hearts goes out to those babies who were lost. but it really speaks to americans in need, and i guess that's why i'm so troubled to be on the floor today, because the framework that we have says to america that when you're in need we will not as this congress and this government be prepared to help you. i think what is disappointing and i know for the speaker, it is probably the same case as i am speaking because just about three days ago we thought there was a deal between the white house and the framework that was offered and the leadership of this house. it's disappointing that in the course of a couple days we've come to a situation where this plan, plan b, raises only about $300 billion from high-income households and the centers for budget priorities suggest that millionaires will get $108,500 per $1 million, over $1 million in tax cuts, but what will the middle class gets? plan b allows the old pre-bush or bush tax cuts to conti
, connecticut, many would wonder what do they have in common. an enormous gun tragedy and the loss of 26 lives, and americans suffering from a devastating storm. our hearts go out to those babies lost. it speaks to americans in need. that is why i am so trouble to be on the floor today. the framework we have says to america when you are in need, we will not be prepared to help you. what is disappointing, and i know for the speaker, it is probably the same case. just about three days ago, we thought there was a deal. between the white house and the framework offered. of this leadership house. it is disappointing. in the course of a couple of days, we have come to a situation where this plan, plan b, raises only about $300 billion from high income households. the centers for budget priority suggests millionaires would get tax cuts over $1 million. what would the middle class get? plan b and aroused -- allows the old bush tax cuts to continue to continue the deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunities to keep their money. we will lose $400 million under this plan in high income revenu
lady and the chairman. when i mention the words hurricane sandy and the tragedy in newton, connecticut, many would wonder what do they have in common. an enormous gun tragedy and the loss of 26 lives, and americans suffering from a devastating storm. our hearts go out to those babies lost. it speaks to americans in need. that is why i am so trouble to be on the floor today. the framework we have says to america when you are in need, we will not be prepared to help you. what is disappointing, and i know for the speaker, it is probably the same case. just about three days ago, we thought there was a deal between the white house and the framework offered and the leadership of this house. it is disappointing. in the course of a couple of days, we have come to a situation where this plan, plan b, raises only about $300 billion from high income households. the centers for budget priority suggests millionaires would get tax cuts over $1 million. what would the middle class get? plan b allows the old bush tax cuts to continue to continue the deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunit
-up -- if you are poor, you'd have to spend a lot of energy to get enough to eat. john, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling to mention low- quality food and the cost of health care, but you covered that well. do you think it would be more beneficial if they start doing a local farming program where they could start growing vegetables? maybe have some land with tiles -- cows and chickens, and local people could work on the farming areas and return the food to the communities as opposed to being so reliant on high-salt diets, the foods we would coin as having a long shelf life, leaving it on the shelf for six months without going bad? has the government been able to look into those programs, considering the finances involved in the program as a whole? host: thank you. a related topic -- the availability of this fresh produce is a big distraction for many. guest: there are some programs that speak directly to the point, one our farms-to-school programs, directed to help know where food is coming from and getting fresher food into the schools. in addition, we talk
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9